Not the best of time for the |Catholic Church

[Ken Morgan]

You would have to go back and ask the various members of Church leadership that question. I've read some of the various historical information about when and why celibacy was required, but it's not something I lose a lot of sleep over either way. As I've said, I don't really understand why non-Catholics care one way or another, or why even Catholics care if they're not priests and not intending to become one. It's not really anyone else's problem, let alone their business, is it?

Bill I'm one of thsoe people who has studied history for my entire life, much of that history revolves around the RC religion. I find it all very interesting. I don't live in your country but i read up on US history all the time, I'm not of Nordic blood but i read up on the Vikings, I'm not religious but simply from a historical perspective I would travel teh "holy land" in a heart beat.
I simply love to understadn things'

 

[Ken Morgan]

But there in lies the arguement no?

Paul of Tarsus wrote decades after Jesus's death, quoting people who claimed to have known him. There is nothing directly from his time "alive".

Again, back to me loving history stuff.

Do I think he existed? Possibly, though he may very well be a compulation of multiple people perhaps? He may have been a rabbi who stirred up some serious crap? I'm curious as to the historical Jesus, because if he did exist raising crap among the Roman occupiers took serious balls. Obviously i have no interest in the religious Jesus simply because I don't believe in it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill I'm one of thsoe people who has studied history for my entire life, much of that history revolves around the RC religion. I find it all very interesting. I don't live in your country but i read up on US history all the time, I'm not of Nordic blood but i read up on the Vikings, I'm not religious but simply from a historical perspective I would travel teh "holy land" in a heart beat.
I simply love to understadn things'

Ken, given your other posts, I have trouble buying into the notion that your inquiries are simply efforts to learn more about the historical dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and if so, I apologize, but there seems to be a great deal of boy who cried 'wolf' here. You have an admitted animosity towards religion and you ask your questions in the form of accusations; not typically the framework of scholarship, but more the leading questions of a person looking for a 'gotcha' to hurl in the face of a believer and walk away feeling good about having shown those religious morons a thing or two.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But there in lies the arguement no?

Paul of Tarsus wrote decades after Jesus's death, quoting people who claimed to have known him. There is nothing directly from his time "alive".

Paul's writings were to and about his interactions with the Apostles who did know Jesus, and were detailed. They make up one of several writings from people who knew those who knew Jesus, and taken together, most historians find them persuasive that the person described existed; miracles and resurrection to one side.

Again, back to me loving history stuff.

I love history too. I seldom approach it from the standpoint of 'prove to me that President Washington existed, or I'll assume he didn't'. In other words, scholarship is seldom in the form of an attack dog.

Do I think he existed? Possibly, though he may very well be a compulation of multiple people perhaps? He may have been a rabbi who stirred up some serious crap? I'm curious as to the historical Jesus, because if he did exist raising crap among the Roman occupiers took serious balls. Obviously i have no interest in the religious Jesus simply because I don't believe in it.

There were a number of people in the region claiming messianic status at that time. Jesus is the one who is remembered, and the last one to have any followers.

There was a show recently on the National Geographic channel on other messianic figures in history. Interesting stuff. And also interesting - none of them seem to have anyone claiming they didn't actually exist, even though they likewise had no direct witness-writings about them (except the most recent ones). It appears that the 'I don't think he existed' crowd tends to concentrate on the one claimant to messiahship whose message survived. The others, they're perfectly willing to stipulate existed as historical persons. No agenda there, right? Right.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Ken, given your other posts, I have trouble buying into the notion that your inquiries are simply efforts to learn more about the historical dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and if so, I apologize, but there seems to be a great deal of boy who cried 'wolf' here. You have an admitted animosity towards religion and you ask your questions in the form of accusations; not typically the framework of scholarship, but more the leading questions of a person looking for a 'gotcha' to hurl in the face of a believer and walk away feeling good about having shown those religious morons a thing or two.

Point taken and I do apoligise if taht is the impression i give.

It is difficult sometimes to balance out my love of history, (including about 1000 books surrounding me right now), and my serious dislike of religion.

I have studied in school and on my own many..."useless" things in history, I'm great at trival pusuit!

We are actually very much a like Bill, we both like to "know" things, we don't mind being proven wrong, and we just want to be left alone. If you're ever in Toronto let me know, I'll buy you a beer, you buy teh wings and we can "argue" this stuff properly.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Point taken and I do apoligise if taht is the impression i give.

It is difficult sometimes to balance out my love of history, (including about 1000 books surrounding me right now), and my serious dislike of religion.

I have studied in school and on my own many..."useless" things in history, I'm great at trival pusuit!

We are actually very much a like Bill, we both like to "know" things, we don't mind being proven wrong, and we just want to be left alone. If you're ever in Toronto let me know, I'll buy you a beer, you buy teh wings and we can "argue" this stuff properly.

I would enjoy it, Ken. Be careful, I may take you up on it!

 

[Blade96]

Ack. Sorry :asian: Too many negatives in that statement. And you are correct, I was referring to inside the U.S.

I meant you'd be hard-pressed to find a Catholic under the age of 45 that HAS more than 3 kids. Roman Catholic families across the board in the US are much smaller than they have been and I don't think the answer is exclusively because of NFP.

because most younger catholics in north america these days use birth control. Its like in some countries like in the phillipines i believe where a lot of em dont use contraception.

This part
[/b]

You don't like religious people saying that to you, but look around this board and see how atheists view and belittle us who are religious.

I have seen it. oh yes. Ken most notably. Me, I attack the beliefs (many of which are downright dangerous) but not in the manner that Ken does.

What I dont attack is the belief in a God or divine Creator. Because as I said before, I am open to the possibility of a creator's existence.

I also dont attack the belief in Jesus. Yes, he may have existed. Christianity began from someone.

and btw I am a history major and love history (though admittedly my focus was on Russian/Soviet history)

 

[Empty Hands]

The abuse and the coverup are entirely predictable, and don't even really indict the Catholic Church per se. We see similar behavior in many other institutions with lots of bureaucracy, hierarchy, lack of transparency, and institutionalized power. What makes it worse in this case is that the Church puts itself forward as a moral arbiter, uses that moral standing to aid their crimes and coverups, and has the ability to use their power, moral standing, and international nature to further avoid accountability. You see ****ups like this in say, a large company or a local independent church, but prosecutors won't leave them alone because they fear the political backlash.

The only mistake is in thinking that the Church or its members are somehow more moral than everyone else, and would avoid these predictable consequences of their structure. Certainly no student of history would see the Catholic Church as more moral than anything else around it.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Blush….

I am 99.99% certain god does not exist. If there is any evidence to prove it, I am more then willing to look at it. I basically don’t believe in the supernatural as most people understand it, again I need proof. Again, seriously, not to be insulting but god, ghosts, santa, they’re all the same to me.

Atheism and atheists have been mocked here too. Generally it’s a contemptuous attitude whereby we are treated as lost children who need to be shown the “way”.

I don’t treat religion as sacred, at least on this forum; it should be argued/discussed about in the same way we argue about MA, politics and everything else here. This forum is a place where we can debate anything. I enjoy verbal sparring, I hold no animosity towards Bill or anyone else, why would I? Look through my past posts, I’m a libertarian, I recall arguing that while I have no use for religion, I will always defend a persons right to be religious.

In the real world I have never debated or argued with a religious person, ever. I have gone to midnight mass many times, I have organized many dinners where I have always added in the saying of grace, plus many other religious events, because they are important to people who are important to me. I am polite, (the Canadian in me!)! But I have been on numerous occasions been given bibles, been told that people are praying for me, been told I am going to hell, and have been the target of people who try and talk me out of my “false” beliefs. I have never done that to them.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Blush….

I am 99.99% certain god does not exist. If there is any evidence to prove it, I am more then willing to look at it. I basically don’t believe in the supernatural as most people understand it, again I need proof. Again, seriously, not to be insulting but god, ghosts, santa, they’re all the same to me.

Well, if you don't believe in Santa, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside. You'll have reindeer tracks up your backside by the time we're done, laddy buck.

Atheism and atheists have been mocked here too. Generally it’s a contemptuous attitude whereby we are treated as lost children who need to be shown the “way”.

Not by me.

I don’t treat religion as sacred, at least on this forum; it should be argued/discussed about in the same way we argue about MA, politics and everything else here. This forum is a place where we can debate anything. I enjoy verbal sparring, I hold no animosity towards Bill or anyone else, why would I? Look through my past posts, I’m a libertarian, I recall arguing that while I have no use for religion, I will always defend a persons right to be religious.

Yes, you have said that, but you have also said that what religionists 'need' is to be 'told' about the truth. You say you have no personal animosity, but you do, Ken, you do. You may not believe it about yourself, but it leaks out of your very words. Seriously, man.

In the real world I have never debated or argued with a religious person, ever. I have gone to midnight mass many times, I have organized many dinners where I have always added in the saying of grace, plus many other religious events, because they are important to people who are important to me. I am polite, (the Canadian in me!)! But I have been on numerous occasions been given bibles, been told that people are praying for me, been told I am going to hell, and have been the target of people who try and talk me out of my “false” beliefs. I have never done that to them.

I've been told I'm going to hell by people picketing a porno theater I was going into (hey, I'm a Marine, I likes me the nekkid wimmins, get over it) and I'm a member of the Knights of Columbus that has been scolded for collecting money for 'retarded children' because a) that's not politically correct (sorry, I didn't come up with the name) and b) the KKK is bad (the Knights of Columbus are not *those* knights, thanks) and c) the Pope is the anti-Christ. Yay me, even when I do good I do bad.

I've also argued with a man who insisted on calling Jesus a 'dead Jew on a stick'. Like you, he claimed he was not being insulting, but literal. Didn't Jesus die? Yes. Wasn't he a Jew? Yes. Was he crucified? Yes. "Then he's a 'dead Jew on a stick', and if you take offense to that, it's your problem and not mine." I get it, I get it. But of course, the intent when using terms like that is to inflame the passions. Get the other guy to lose it and take a swing at you (rhetorically or physically). Win the argument by getting the other guy to go stark raving bonkers on you.

You could call God 'God' or simply deity or creator if the word God is offensive to you. One word, easy to use and remember. But 'invisible man in the sky' is so much more demeaning, so much more delicious, it's hard to pass up, huh? If you can make a religionist's head explode, bonus points! And you can argue that you're only being literal, not insulting. Do you really think anyone believes that of you?

So I've had some experience with people who are general asshats regarding the question of religion, pro and con. Please don't think you're the Lone Ranger here.

Religion? I don't treat discussion of religion as sacred either. I'm perfectly willing to discuss my beliefs and to admit that I have no answers, only beliefs, and that they could be completely wrong. No problem. That's discussion. But some of the terms used, come on, that's not a dispassionate discussion of religion, that's a blatant attempt to get someone's goat.

It's also unfair, because the religionists can't fight back in kind. Atheists know perfectly well that religionists are emotionally invested in their belief systems and have sore spots where they've been repeatedly poked by non-believers over and over again. So instead of saying "Jesus," they say "Dead Jew on a Stick" and stand back and watch the fireworks. What can a religionist call an atheist? A 'Godless Heathen?" Yeah, big whoop.

 

[Empty Hands]

By the way, the Church is also making themselves look far, far worse with their recent behavior after the scandals broke. They should sell a few pairs of those Prada shoes and hire a PR firm!

From the Archbishop of NY: "...urged his congregation to pray for the pope, saying he was suffering some of the same unjust accusations once faced by Jesus."

:jaw-dropping: How can one man be so arrogant and clueless?!?

 

[Empty Hands]

It's also unfair, because the religionists can't fight back in kind. Atheists know perfectly well that religionists are emotionally invested in their belief systems and have sore spots where they've been repeatedly poked by non-believers over and over again. So instead of saying "Jesus," they say "Dead Jew on a Stick" and stand back and watch the fireworks. What can a religionist call an atheist? A 'Godless Heathen?" Yeah, big whoop.

It can be a pretty big whoop, actually. Coming from your neighbors. Your parents. Your boss. Your spouse (ouch!). A pretty reasonably sized swath of America thinks that atheists are evil and immoral. In an infamous poll, atheists came in dead last in who you would vote for for President, after homosexuals, Muslims, and other supposedly unpopular categories. Not by a small margin either, about 52%.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

By the way, the Church is also making themselves look far, far worse with their recent behavior after the scandals broke. They should sell a few pairs of those Prada shoes and hire a PR firm!

From the Archbishop of NY: "...urged his congregation to pray for the pope, saying he was suffering some of the same unjust accusations once faced by Jesus."

:jaw-dropping: How can one man be so arrogant and clueless?!?

Agreed. The key here would be remorse; absolute, complete, unequivocal, and a sincere promise to turn over all information regarding all molesters the Church knows about to the law enforcement agencies responsible immediately. A little groveling would not hurt either, IMHO.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Well, if you don't believe in Santa, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside. You'll have reindeer tracks up your backside by the time we're done, laddy buck.



Not by me.



Yes, you have said that, but you have also said that what religionists 'need' is to be 'told' about the truth. You say you have no personal animosity, but you do, Ken, you do. You may not believe it about yourself, but it leaks out of your very words. Seriously, man.



I've been told I'm going to hell by people picketing a porno theater I was going into (hey, I'm a Marine, I likes me the nekkid wimmins, get over it) and I'm a member of the Knights of Columbus that has been scolded for collecting money for 'retarded children' because a) that's not politically correct (sorry, I didn't come up with the name) and b) the KKK is bad (the Knights of Columbus are not *those* knights, thanks) and c) the Pope is the anti-Christ. Yay me, even when I do good I do bad.

I've also argued with a man who insisted on calling Jesus a 'dead Jew on a stick'. Like you, he claimed he was not being insulting, but literal. Didn't Jesus die? Yes. Wasn't he a Jew? Yes. Was he crucified? Yes. "Then he's a 'dead Jew on a stick', and if you take offense to that, it's your problem and not mine." I get it, I get it. But of course, the intent when using terms like that is to inflame the passions. Get the other guy to lose it and take a swing at you (rhetorically or physically). Win the argument by getting the other guy to go stark raving bonkers on you.

You could call God 'God' or simply deity or creator if the word God is offensive to you. One word, easy to use and remember. But 'invisible man in the sky' is so much more demeaning, so much more delicious, it's hard to pass up, huh? If you can make a religionist's head explode, bonus points! And you can argue that you're only being literal, not insulting. Do you really think anyone believes that of you?

So I've had some experience with people who are general asshats regarding the question of religion, pro and con. Please don't think you're the Lone Ranger here.

Religion? I don't treat discussion of religion as sacred either. I'm perfectly willing to discuss my beliefs and to admit that I have no answers, only beliefs, and that they could be completely wrong. No problem. That's discussion. But some of the terms used, come on, that's not a dispassionate discussion of religion, that's a blatant attempt to get someone's goat.

It's also unfair, because the religionists can't fight back in kind. Atheists know perfectly well that religionists are emotionally invested in their belief systems and have sore spots where they've been repeatedly poked by non-believers over and over again. So instead of saying "Jesus," they say "Dead Jew on a Stick" and stand back and watch the fireworks. What can a religionist call an atheist? A 'Godless Heathen?" Yeah, big whoop.

You know Sam Harris charges $25K to speak at an event, what say we rent a hall, buy beer, sell tickets and do this out in the open?...I could use the coin....

No offense but I think this thread is beat to death right now. I have no doubt we can have more fun twisting another thread to suit our diabotical ways later on.

Going for a run, picking up my daughter, going to the hardware store and doing some writing...mundane, everyday life, with or without religion. But ever thankful to be alive and healthy!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It can be a pretty big whoop, actually. Coming from your neighbors. Your parents. Your boss. Your spouse (ouch!). A pretty reasonably sized swath of America thinks that atheists are evil and immoral. In an infamous poll, atheists came in dead last in who you would vote for for President, after homosexuals, Muslims, and other supposedly unpopular categories. Not by a small margin either, about 52%.

Yes, good point. But let me try to explain what I mean.

When a Marine calls a soldier a 'Dogface', it is done with intent to be insulting. And it often is; many soldiers dislike being called that.

When a soldier calls a Marine a 'Jarhead', it is likewise done with intent to be insulting, but it never works, because Marines like being called 'Jarhead'.

Like the difference between me using a certain racial epithet and someone of that race using it to describe someone else of that same race. Same word, but offensive depending on who uses it.

Atheists know perfectly well that calling Jesus a 'Dead Jew on a Stick' or referring to God as a 'Sky Fairy' or 'Invisible Man in the Sky' is likely to inflame passions, and that's why they use those terms. Playing all innocent like they're just using honest description doesn't really play very well, it falls flat as an act.

However, there aren't really any derogatory words for atheists that any atheist I know of would take particular offense to. Like calling a Marine a 'Grunt' or a 'Seagoing Bellhop' or a 'Leatherneck', it's liable to net you a yawn and a "Yeah, so what?" in response.

I'm not saying atheists can't be discriminated against, clearly they can. I'm saying it is difficult for a religionist to fight fire with fire when it comes to name-calling. Since an atheist's belief (actually lack of belief) isn't emotionally bound, there's no way to needle them using pejorative words. But religionists can be needled that way, and atheists know it and use it to their advantage. Fine when you're fighting a war, but not really when you claim to want a rational discussion, you know?

 

[dbell]

In addition, priests go to school longer than MDs...4 years undergrad in Philosophy then at least 4 years at the Seminary.

Actually they are only required to have 2 years of Philosophy, and 4 years of Theology. In many cases a Priest will have 4 years of Philosophy, but it is not required. (They are required, in the US only, to have a 4 year Bachelors degree before going to Seminary, but only 2 years (such as an Associates Degree) need to be in Philosophy.

 

[JWLuiza]

I don't think it is realistic to say that priests know nothing about marriage. Even the priests who have never been married have had to take a serious vow of their own with their ordination.

In addition, priests go to school longer than MDs...4 years undergrad in Philosophy then at least 4 years at the Seminary.

Ummm....

MD in US= 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, and at least 3 years of residency.....
So at least 11 years of education before we are on our own. I'll be doing a fellowship after residency as well.

Not germane to the discussion, just curious as to how long you think doctors are trained...

 

[Ramirez]

Point taken and I do apoligise if taht is the impression i give.

It is difficult sometimes to balance out my love of history, (including about 1000 books surrounding me right now), and my serious dislike of religion.

I have studied in school and on my own many..."useless" things in history, I'm great at trival pusuit!

We are actually very much a like Bill, we both like to "know" things, we don't mind being proven wrong, and we just want to be left alone. If you're ever in Toronto let me know, I'll buy you a beer, you buy teh wings and we can "argue" this stuff properly.

put me down for a pint.....Guiness my goodness!

 

[Carol]

Ummm....

MD in US= 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, and at least 3 years of residency.....
So at least 11 years of education before we are on our own. I'll be doing a fellowship after residency as well.

Not germane to the discussion, just curious as to how long you think doctors are trained...

Med school is 4 years? Dammit...sorry, I'm mixing it up with Law, which is 3 years. I meant no disrespect, just trying to illustrate it was .... very long. Sorry for picking a bad example.

The way it was explained to me when I was confirmed, priests do not have an academic residency requirement, but there is a 5 year "training" period that a new priest must go through. (I don't know the granualarity here...if this is at the diocesan level, national level, etc.)

A new priest takes on this trainee/junior role in an established parish under a more senior priest for 5 years. He can live at the rectory, be paid a stipend, celebrate Mass, and perform other duties but is operating under the supervision of a more senior priest. I don't know where the line of demarcation is. I worked with a new priest for quite a bit when I was preparing for my confirmation, yet he did not confirm me, the senior priest did. When a buddy of mine got married in the same church a couple of years later, she and her husband were married by the new fellow.

After the 5 years are up, they are automatically transferred to another parish. I was left with the impression that the priest can express some preference for his assignment, be it personal (ie: within New England) or professional (ie: a bilingual Spanish priest might ask for the chance to serve a parish with a large Latino population), but the ultimate decision was made by the higher ups. As far as I know, once this transfer occurs, they are out on their own.

So...not as long as doctors. But still a long time.

 

[Ken Morgan]

put me down for a pint.....Guiness my goodness!

Hey anytime....someone.....wants to organise a Toronto MT get together, I'm in!